The Apprentice 2009 - Final

That was a true marketing task - I got worried right at the start when Sir Alan said the two remaining candidates had to produce a marketing campaign, once again he was referring to a promotion campaign. After that, however, it became obvious that this was a true marketing programme. The candidates had to start off with a target market in mind, consider how to position their box of chocolates for that target. They had to consider the price to sell it at and then produce the promotional campaign (Sir Alan's marketing campaign) considering the place where they would sell the product. Both Yasmina and Kate produced great campaigns, although it certainly seemed that Kate had the better product, but well done to Yasmina on being hired.

So who is going to tell Sir Alan what marketing is all about?

As a side point, throughout five series of The Apprentice, I have not seen any real evidence of Sir Alan considering online marketing techniques (there was a brief shot showing that Yasmina had considered a website on the poster for Cocoa Electric in the final) so maybe I should try and enrol him on the CIM e-Marketing Award so he can learn more!

Formula 1 motor racing

As a fan of motorsport I find the current dispute between the teams and the FIA as governing body over the proposed rules from 2010 including a budget cap both fascinating and frustrating in equal measure - fascinating from the perspective of understanding the power struggles in the sport and how it has been run in the past, many details of which are being revealed after years of secrecy and frustrating because the politics is getting in the way of the sport.

As a marketer, however, I noticed an interesting point with regards to the proposals for the budget cap. That is that marketing expenditure is not included within the £40million cap which as I write is in the rules for those teams choosing to run to the cap in 2010. The regulations specifically stating:

Section 5.4 - Relevant expenditure shall include all expenditure, valued in accordance with these Regulations, which, irrespective of its source, is directly or indirectly connected with the CRT’s (Cost-Regulated Team) participation in the Championship save for expenditure : (a) the sole purpose of which is marketing or hospitality;

In my view, and generally accepted within marketing, product development is a marketing activity. The product of a Formula 1 team is the car they produce. Therefore taking the regulation literally, as a marketer, the teams would not be limited on the amount of money they spend on car development which is precisely the area the FIA are trying to limit!

It does say in the rules "In the event that the provisions of these Regulations admit of more than one interpretation, they shall be interpreted in a manner designed to facilitate the achievement of the overriding objective" which I guess would over-rule my thought, as would the rule "The burden is on the CRTs to ensure that they comply with the letter and the spirit both of these Regulations in general and the Cost Cap in Article 5 in particular.". Despite those comments, however, I do get the feeling that the FIA do not understand the term "marketing" and are therefore responsible for another crime against marketing!

The Apprentice 2009

I wasn't intending to mention the programme The Apprentice again on here, but after watching this weeks episode - rebranding Margate - I changed my mind. Prior to this episode the series has had less misuse of the word marketing than previously, but in one episode that maybe changed. There were numerous mentions of "marketing" which should have been "promotion", this coming from the teams, Sir Alan and the clients of the activity - the agencies and the Margate councillors.

This type of use of the word marketing has come to be expected on the programme, but the real issue I had this week was that the task was billed as "rebranding". I don't think it was re-branding, the requirement of the teams was "repositioning". In deciding which market to appeal to they were creating a position for Margate in the holiday destination market, their slogans being designed (hopefully on their part) to make Margate attractive to their selected audience. Rebranding would have required a lot more work than could possibly be achieved in a two or three day activity - true rebranding would involve many of the businesses in Margate and could take two or three years to achieve.

As for the output of the losing team - trying to associate a half empty leaflet and a picture which required, rather than painted, a thousand words as a poster with "marketing" was a true crime against marketing.

Marketing Suite

One thing I see regularly at property development sites is a sign indicating where the "marketing suite" is. I am often tempted to go in and ask them about their marketing strategies and the mix they are using - so far I have resisted as it would be unfair on the sales administrators who work in these suites.

I wonder who they are trying to fool by avoiding the word "sales" in the description. I am pretty sure that all that happens is that the public know it is a sales office, but then add the word marketing as an alternative to sales, leaving the impression that it is still somewhere to be avoided if they want to avoid being pressured. This is another misuse of the word marketing which adds to the negative perceptions of the profession in the eyes of those who aren't fully aware. At the same time it does nothing to overcome the negatives of selling which could be partly resolved through better practices, but largely needs a change in culture for which this is not the right place!!

This is an example of a typical sign seen in Leeds at the development in Granary Wharf.

Laws against marketing

Not a crime against marketing in terms of the use of the word, but a crime against marketing in terms of the ability of marketers to do their job.

Today the UK government have made an announcement which goes against marketing, and the freedom of marketers within organisations both large and small. I am referring to the ban on open display of tobacco products in shops. I am not a smoker and therefore have no axe to grind on that score, but I do think this is a government imposition which is a crime against marketing. Tobacco companies have already had the freedom to advertise taken away from them so they can't tell anyone they exist, now the innocent act of displaying products which are legally allowed to be sold is to be made illegal.

I am not sure I believe that this will actually harm small shopkeepers - I think that those who smoke are not influenced particularly at the point of sale to suddenly decide to buy some cigarettes, and neither can I imagine that anyone ever started smoking just because the shop they were in had cigarettes on display. Somehow, despite what Alan Johnson, Health Secretary, says I suspect peer pressure plays a much larger part.

However, my real issue is that this is going to take away another element of marketing from the tobacco companies, and retailers. If it suits the powers that be, who knows what they may restrict next - should we really allow this to happen?

While the product is legally allowed to be sold, surely the manufacturer and retailer should be allowed to tell customers, current and potential, that the product is available. Maybe what I have said about the lack of impact of point of sale displays indicates that these are not making a difference to the sales level through the promotional element of marketing - that may be the case, but it should not be taken away as a small part of that promotional effort.

At least they have not stopped branding of packaging as had been suggested - now that would be a major crime against marketing....

Details of the story available here

The Apprentice

Having been meaning to write something here for ages I now have to write about a crime against marketing which I saw last week on the BBC series The Apprentice. When the losing team were in the boardroom they were questioned about their expenditure, a major part of which was their "marketing". This was picked up by Sir Alan Sugar who made much play of them overspending on marketing. The problem is it wasn't on marketing, it was on promotion - this being just one small part of marketing rather than the totality it was portrayed as.

It is this misconception of marketing which I find really frustrating and is one Sir Alan has made before in previous series. I suspect the understanding Sir Alan has of the word marketing relates to advertising and promotion rather than the much wider remit it should cover. I am sure however, that he is actually a pretty good marketer - anyone who has amassed a fortune of over £800m has to be pretty good at identifying customer needs and satisfying them profitably (Amstrad emailer maybe being an exception where he got things wrong). I just wish he would use the correct word and not keep perpetuating the common myth that all marketers do is advertising.

You can find more information about the series The Apprentice at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/apprentice/

The Marketer

Even the Chartered Institute of Marketing seem to be able to print things in their magazine - The Marketer - which confuse the role of marketing.

The January 2008 issue has Theo Paphitis on the cover with the line "It's all about marketing". In the interview with him he is asked the question "Is marketing essential for a start-up?" The response is:
"It's all about marketing. Marketing's the most important part of any business [great so far!]. Even if you've got the best product in the world, if you can't tell people about it and convince them that they need it, they're not going to buy it. Plenty of average products become successful because of tremendous marketing."

Whilst I fully agree with the sentiment of what Theo is saying, he does seem to be saying that marketing is about communication, the best product in the world he mentions is also part of marketing - communicating about it to people being another. Two of the seven P's - Product and Promotion - are included here so why is one associated with marketing but the other not? OK, I'll give him some credit for Physical evidence and Process when he says about making lingerie special (through La Senza) when he says about ensuring it was nicely wrapped.

Further into the interview Theo says he is very marketing led and when times are hard he increases his marketing budget, a great philosophy which certainly seems to have made him wealthy. Unfortunately, it seems that he is only referring to the communications budget when he says this. As a saving grace, he does finish by saying that "the good marketer is innovative" - absolutely true, but across the whole range of the marketers toolbox please Theo!

Find out more about The Marketer journal via the Chartered Institute of Marketing website